Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
Retreating to the shadows of equivocation and moral equivalence to bleat "It's too hard and complicated to understand" is cowardly.
On what issues does the ACLU advocate restricting the rights of others?
This seems to be an exercise in defining away purely political conservativism. Everything is expressed in social/moral terms.
>>Can you show me a specific problem with the definitions?
I don't just disagree with the definitions, I disagree with the entire idea that one may map ideologies on two arbitrary dimensions.
Why not: map all ideologies on the dimensions "loyalty" and "frivolity"? Or "Pascal" and "Descartes"?
It's a meaningless parlor game.
Religion and Second Amendment Rights come immediately to mind. Their constant backing of the removal of religion from the public square, instead of working for INCLUSION, is a prime example.
The founding fathers tried that for a few years. Made much wiser by the experience, they roundly rejected it in favor of the current Constitution.
This may come as a disheartening blow to some, but the truth is that Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al were much wiser than the average libertarian posting at FR.
Right to self-defense. Property rights.
Almost right. Think of it as anarchy=self government in the absence of organized government, and you have the ultimate philosophical goal of libertarians. We are adults. We act like adults. We treat others like adults. Formal governments are for those who need an authority figure to punish them and tell them when they stray off their moral compass.
Libertarians don't need that.
You are awfully ignorant of things like "social pressure" and being an outcast aren't you? If you don't want a drugged up customer stinking up your store, kick them out. If you don't want to be kicked out of stores, don't be FUBAR when you head out your front door. Easy-peasy.
And no, your Snake Pliskin example is ludicrous. Nor is it in any way accurate. Don't be stupid.
Surprisingly, Poland has a higher number of conservatives (23.76%) and fewer socialists (10.89%) than does the U.S., where the percentages are 22.93% and 22.88%, respectively. It looks as if the Poles may have learned something from their history. Pierogis, anyone?
Well... they are certainly much smarter than you. Would you care to trade more insults? It seems to be what you are on this thread for... You certainly don't seem capable of rational debate.
Careful... I'm one of those rabid Constitutionalists.
The Libertarians and I peek over the Elephant at each other.
It appears that, using the site's terminology, "moral liberalism" is the desire for individual control over both social and economic private matters, while "moral conservatism" is the desire for state control over social and economic matters. In that sense, "libertarianism" does seem to equal "liberalism", but the definition of "liberalism" isn't the one commonly accepted today, at least in the U.S.
For example, here is the site's definition of "ultra liberalism":
Ultra Liberalism is an extreme form of Economic Liberalism.
It is the view (sometimes called Minimal Statism, or Minarchism) that government should be as small as possible.
Ultra-liberalist usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" state functions of government (courts, police, prisons, defense). Some other minarchists include in the role of government the management of essential common infrastructure (roads, money).
That definition makes me an "ultra liberal", which in any modern context is ridiculous. It aligns more with classical liberalism, which is a theory of limited (and, in the U.S., strictly Constitutional) government that these days is more accurately termed "libertarianism". But I would challenge anyone to find me someone who identifies himself as a modern liberal who would agree that "government should be restricted to its 'minimal' state functions of government (courts, police, prisons, defense)." Yes, libertarianism and liberalism are the same when liberalism is defined as the desire for as limited a government as possible, but no one these days in the U.S. defines liberalism that way.
As far as who a "liberal" (per this site; a libertarian as defined elsewhere) would vote for given either a party-line Democrat or a party-line Republican, my choice is Republican. They frequently fail the limited-government test on social matters, and occasionally on economic matters, but they are objectively more economically free-market than Democrats and they do occasionally limit government, at least in economic matters. From a limited-government perspective, the Democrats are as bad with economic matters as are the Republicans with social matters, but the Democrats also fail to seek limited-government answers to social questions - they simply tend to implement a different kind of government control than the Republicans. Thus on a whole Republicans tend to do better than Democrats on limiting the size and scope of government, although there are exceptions and the difference in some areas is becoming increasingly small.
The Constitution is an excellent document. Too bad our current crop of political Republicans and Democrats have no clue what it says or how to run the government from within it's limits on their power.
Are you saying you can pin down something as complicated as a political philosophy with a sixteen question multiple choice quiz and an x and y axis? Oh, and I was not bleating and nor am I a coward. How you got that out of my post baffles me.
I love Perogis!
And the Polish people too.
Amen!
Yeah, that one isn't biased. LOL.
For example, on drugs and prostitution: I think both should be legal, but I should be free to construct a contract between myself and my employees, or between myself and those I provide insurance for, or between myself and my tenants, etc that will allow me to fire/delist/evict them on the spot for participating in these activities.
And if you have a factory and you don't want to hire gays, or don't want to give them same-sex partner benefits, or whatever, and you write a contract outlining such, I say great, go ahead, that is your right as an employer to set the terms of employment and they can accept or refuse.
And if Bob Smith, owner of Fudge-Packers International, wants to give dental insurance to Henry's husband Dan, fine. As a consumer of their fudge, I may object and no longer buy from them. As Bob's priest, I may disfellowship him. As Bob's doctor/lawyer/insurer/baker, I may refuse him service. As Bob's landlord, I may evict him (pursuant to terms of contract). Notice something: there is still morality, but not at the hands of a central nanny-state.
By replacing morality with legality, you remove the ability to differentiate people who make moral choices because they want to (or are moral themselves), from people who make moral choices out of fear of the state.
You're getting tripped up by the terminology. This chart uses "liberal" in its classical sense, which refers to a philosophy that values individual liberty and limited government. Obviously this term doesn't apply to modern so-called liberals. It does, however, apply to liberians.
The term used on the chart for modern so-called liberals (who vote Democrat and post on DU) is "democratic socialists" -- a much more accurate and descriptive term for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.